Appeal No. 1997-2919
Application No. 08/573,921
Appellants also argue that Schnur does not teach removal
of the silane layer in irradiated regions to the extent that
underlying portions of the glass substrate are “uncoated” or
“exposed.” In other words, appellants argue that Schnur does
not suggest that the silane layer is removed down to the
substrate in the irradiated areas.
We find this argument unpersuasive. Schnur does suggest
removal of portions of the silane layer by radiation (col. 8,
l. 62-col. 9, l. 10), although Schnur theorizes that removal
may be incomplete (col. 24, l. 32-40). A “partial atomic
layer of silicon oxide” may be left on the original substrate
after irradiation. Be that as it may, regardless of Schnur’s
theory, appellants have not shown that their irradiation step
differs in any material respect from that of Schnur, nor do
appellants’ claims distinguish over the removal of the silane
layer effected by Schnur. In this regard, we find that the
requirement in claim 9 to “remove a portion of the silane
layer and expose the glass substrate in the irradiated
portion” essentially reads on the operation described in
Schnur. In any event, since Schnur uses substantially the
same silane coating materials and irradiation technique as
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007